218 A.3d 228
D.C.2019Background
- Appellant Yordanos Sium was employed by OSSE as a school bus driver; in Jan. 2011 her bus contacted an illegally parked car (incident captured on video), she left the scene, and an investigator interviewed her the next day.
- The investigator’s report says Sium first denied contact, then (after being told she was seen) “changed her story” and apologized; OSSE cleared her to return to work about a week later.
- Nearly three months after the incident, OSSE issued a notice of proposed termination and then terminated Sium for “Neglect of Duty”; OSSE later asserted grounds including fleeing the scene, lying to the investigator, and a second “preventable” collision within 12 months.
- Sium filed a pro se appeal with the Office of Employee Appeals (OEA) in Aug. 2013 (well past the 30‑day statutory deadline); OSSE moved to dismiss as untimely, but the OEA ALJ did not explicitly sustain that motion and proceeded to the merits.
- The OEA ALJ upheld the termination without holding an evidentiary hearing (stating, in one sentence, a hearing was unnecessary). The OEA Board denied Sium’s petition for review; Sium sought judicial review and appealed to this court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 30‑day filing deadline in D.C. Code § 1‑606.03(a) is jurisdictional | Sium argued OEA could hear her late appeal (and OSSE effectively waived/abandoned any timeliness defense) | OSSE argued the 30‑day deadline is jurisdictional and OEA lacked power to hear a late appeal | The court held the 30‑day deadline is not jurisdictional but a claim‑processing rule; because OSSE abandoned its timely‑filing objection below it may not resurrect that defense on appeal |
| Whether the OEA ALJ abused discretion by refusing an evidentiary hearing despite disputed material facts | Sium argued there were material factual disputes (knowledge of collision, whether she fled, whether she lied) that required a hearing | OSSE treated the facts as established (citing video and prior incident) and the OEA invoked its rule giving ALJs discretion to grant hearings | The court held the ALJ abused her discretion; when material facts are in dispute an evidentiary hearing is required; vacated and remanded |
| Whether OEA’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence | Sium argued the Board’s decision lacked substantial evidence because the ALJ decided contested facts without a hearing | OSSE relied on ALJ’s findings that Sium fled and lied and on alleged prior “preventable” accident | The court concluded the findings could not stand without a proper hearing resolving factual disputes and remanded for further proceedings |
| Whether Sium was denied due process by lack of an OSSE pre‑termination hearing | Sium asserted deprivation of due process because OSSE did not arrange a pre‑termination hearing | OSSE pointed out the termination notice informed Sium of her right to request a pre‑termination hearing and she did not request one | The court rejected the due process claim (Sium did not avail herself of the pre‑termination process) |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathis v. District of Columbia Hous. Auth., 124 A.3d 1089 (D.C. 2015) (presumption that statutory filing deadlines are nonjurisdictional claim‑processing rules)
- Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs., 138 S. Ct. 13 (2017) (failure to comply with jurisdictional time prescription deprives court of power)
- United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 135 S. Ct. 1625 (2015) (statutory filing deadlines are claim‑processing rules absent clear legislative intent to make them jurisdictional)
- Brewer v. District of Columbia Office of Emp. Appeals, 163 A.3d 799 (D.C. 2017) (agency may dismiss late appeals if seasonably objected to; waiver/abandonment considerations)
- Dupree v. District of Columbia Office of Emp. Appeals, 36 A.3d 826 (D.C. 2011) (remand for evidentiary hearing where ALJ should have recognized material factual disputes)
- District of Columbia Dep’t of Pub. Works v. Colbert, 874 A.2d 353 (D.C. 2005) (standards of review for OEA decisions: findings must be supported by substantial evidence and address each material contested issue)
- Rodriguez v. District of Columbia Office of Emp. Appeals, 145 A.3d 1005 (D.C. 2016) (agency must state findings of fact on each material contested issue)